Appellants should attend the hearing before the CIC to argue for his RTI appeal
The appellant submitted that Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL) had floated a tender for supply of multi-functional additive for branded gasoline and 09 vendors were asked to supply technical data. After due processing an order was placed on a particular vendor. In this context the appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act and sought the complete details of the entire engine test data on the samples submitted by all the potential vendors invited to offer samples. He also wanted to know the fuel economy results achieved from each of the samples submitted by the vendors. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that the selection process was still in process and had not been finalized and so the requested information could not be supplied to appellant.
During the hearing respondent submitted that the requested technical data has been generated by the vendors at considerable cost and is a third party information for which the appellant is not entitled. He also submitted that he cannot part with this data as he is in nondisclosure agreement with the parties concerned. Respondent further submitted that procedure prescribed under section 11(1) Where a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information: has not been followed.
View of CIC
The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the appellant is not entitled to the requested information as the concerned party has spent considerable time, money and resources in generating the data that he is asking for. CIC further stated that third parties generally do not agree for the disclosure of their personal information. The Commission rejected the appeal stating that the appellant has not appeared before this Commission to canvass his case nor has not placed any material on record to establish that disclosure of requested information would be in the larger public interest, which is the only ground for disclosure of personal information under the RTI Act.
Citation: Mr. S. Giridhar v. IOCL in File No.CIC/LS/A/2012/000062
RTI Citation : RTIFI/2012/CIC/618
Click here to view original RTI order of Court / Information Commission